-
Chapter 4: “The Family as a Basic Institution: ”A Feminist Analysis of the Basic Structure as Subject
- Penn State University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
In Section 50 of JFR, titled “The Family as a Basic Institution,” Rawls replies to Okin’s feminist critique of TJ. He states, “If we say the gender system includes whatever social arrangements adversely affect the equal basic liberties and opportunities of women, as well of those of their children as future citizens, then surely that system is subject to critique by the principles of justice” (JFR, 167–68). As the introduction to this volume demonstrates, the question of how Rawlsian justice might secure gender equality has been discussed by many feminists, most notably Okin. However , the Rawls-Okin debate raises more questions than it answers. Okin I thank Ruth Abbey, Chris Brooke, Andy Mason, Miriam Ronzoni, Peter Stone, and Andrew Williams for written comments on earlier versions of this chapter. 4 “The Family as a Basic Institution” A Feminist Analysis of the Basic Structure as Subject Clare Chambers 18442-Abbey_FemInterp_Rawls.indd 75 18442-Abbey_FemInterp_Rawls.indd 75 7/25/13 9:43 AM 7/25/13 9:43 AM 76 Feminist Interpretations of John Rawls criticizes Rawls for failing to apply his theory adequately to the family: she criticizes not Rawls’s approach in general but his attitude toward the family in particular. Okin argues that a consistent application of Rawlsian theory would secure gender justice but that Rawls is remiss in refusing such consistency . In fact, as I show, Rawls’s remarks on the family reveal a more fundamental problem with Rawlsian theory. It is not that Rawls fails to apply his theory correctly to the family, but rather that the specific case of the family illustrates deep-seated difficulties with Rawlsian justice as a whole. The problem is that Rawls’s ambiguous remarks on the family are comprehensible only at the expense of his fundamental claim that there is something distinctive about the application of justice to the basic structure . Okin criticizes Rawls for failing to make good on the fact that the family is part of the basic structure. If he did make good, Okin claims, he would see that the principles of justice must apply to the family in a much more extensive way than he actually allows. As I show, however, the family is one illustration of the fact that how the principles of justice apply to an institution does not depend on whether that institution is part of the basic structure. This is a problem for Rawls because the distinctiveness of the basic structure is a crucial part of the political liberalism that, by the end of his work, has become essential to the Rawlsian project.1 I first outline Okin’s critique of Rawls and provide a valid formalization of her argument. I then examine the main premises of her argument and look for evidence to support Okin’s interpretation of Rawls. I conclude that it is flawed but nonetheless highlights problems with Rawls’s claim that the basic structure is the subject of justice. I consider and reject the argument that Rawls’s theory is consistent according to what I call the “whole structure view”: that the principles of justice apply to the basic structure considered as a whole. Finally, I consider G. A. Cohen’s argument that the basic-structure distinction is problematic. I agree with this criticism, but I suggest that Cohen is wrong in situating the problem with the issue of coercion. I conclude that Rawls’s position on justice in the family is at odds with his claim that the basic structure is uniquely the subject of justice. Okin’s Critique Okin argues in JGF that Rawlsian justice has the potential to secure gender equality but that Rawls fails to bring out this potential. Rawls fails to note three consequences of his stipulation that sex is one of the unknown characteristics behind the veil of ignorance. First, that stipulation seriously 18442-Abbey_FemInterp_Rawls.indd 76 18442-Abbey_FemInterp_Rawls.indd 76 7/25/13 9:43 AM 7/25/13 9:43 AM [44.201.64.238] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 11:55 GMT) “The Family as a Basic Institution” 77 undermines Rawls’s claim that the parties in the OP are heads of households , since that implies that they are male and thus perpetuates patriarchal divisions of labor. Second, if sex were behind the veil of ignorance, then those in the OP would be greatly concerned about matters that Rawls does not discuss, such as “many aspects of social gendering and sex discrimination as well as matters affected by...